Why the Founding Fathers Had It Wrong When They Talked About Equality
24 Jan
Perhaps the most often repeated phrase from the U.S. Declaration of Independence is this: “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
The language was, at the time, a political solution to a thorny problem: Equality was a nice idea… an idea people could rally around… but in practice it simply didn’t exist! Slavery was pervasive, women had no rights, only property-holding men could vote, and the division between the rich and the poor was greater than it is today.
Nonetheless, we framed a constitution and built a society around this myth of equality… a myth that has now been embraced by much of the world.
The only problem is that this myth is just as blatantly false today as it was three centuries ago. All men (and women) aren’t created equal… and we don’t have the same right to life, liberty, and happiness.
Some of us are born into wealthy families… others of us into poorer families. Some of us have crazy math abilities… others of us have mad basketball skills. And our rights can always be taken away… whether because we’re too young or too old, because we committed a crime, or because our government decided we didn’t deserve to have them after all.
It’s time – finally – to set the record straight…. to understand equality for what it is and what it’s not… and to try to correct the errors that the “founding fathers” set in motion centuries ago. It’s time, dare I say it, to create a new philosophy based not on political spin-tactics, but instead on sound rational thinking.
****
My buddy Bill, whose wedding I recently attended, has a relationship unlike any other that I know. The marriage is, as he says, “very, very, very open.” And what he means by that is that he and his wife have sex with lots of partners. But not just any partners… only hot full-bodied women. And though his wife can have sex with women whenever she wants, they have agreed that he must at least be watching. And their rules get weirder from there. But this is a good stopping point.
As a child, my father took an unorthodox approach to parenting. His most often repeated phrase was not, “I’m the parent and you’re the child, and that’s why you have to [fill in the blank],” as I’ve heard so many parents say. Rather, he said, “I’m the parent and you’re the child, but so what?” He believed that it was worth knowing the difference between the roles of the caretaker and caregiver, but he didn’t believe in placing any weight on differences. Inequalities existed… “But so what?”
Wilford is currently writing software that will enable people to create knowledge that never before existed, and to interact with that knowledge in fun and meaningful ways. It’s an idea that we conceived together, and that we are working to enact together. But our strengths and contributions to the business are not equal. Whereas he is a brilliant technologist, abstract philosopher, and purveyor of mixed drinks, I am very good at taking simple yet important ideas, conveying them in ways that are meaningful (or at least interesting), and pouring hard alcohol down the toilet when nobody is watching.
****
The founding fathers institutionalized a culture of denial when they wrote that all men are created equal…. and that we have equal rights to life, freedom, and happiness. Because we know it’s not true. We see it with our own eyes. But we’re afraid to say anything because we don’t want to be known as the guys who knocked equality.
Well, fuck it…. I’ll be that guy.
All people aren’t created equal… and all people don’t and, sometimes – like in the case of criminals – shouldn’t have equal rights! And here are just a few more inequalities that I can think of off the top of my head:
· I’m a better dancer than the dancing wino on Main Street.
· The gap between the rich and the poor is significant and, again, widening.
· Adults have more rights than minors.
· Bill’s wife gets more sex (and, according to her, better sex) than him.
· One guy walking in front of my window is darker than the other.
· Wealthy people are more likely to get away with a crime than poorer people.
· I am less hairy than my father (thank God).
The problem with pretending that equality exists – much like the problem with saying that the sky is green – is that it’s obviously not true… and though we can go on telling a story of equality or green skies forever, it doesn’t overturn what is evident to our senses.
At a time when knowledge is becoming increasingly important, it’s important, too, to base our laws and philosophies on a foundation stronger than one akin to “the sky is green because I say it’s green.”
So… if we realize that equality doesn’t exist, that our founding fathers were mostly just good bullshitters, what’s next? Do the U.S. Constitution and copy-cat constitutions like it around the world fall apart? Do we sink into an anarchist cloud of dust? Not quite.
I propose an Inequality Principle: Admit Inequality and Think!
This Inequality Principle (“admit inequality and think!”) is so easy that I was able do it on my first try last night.
Here’s what happened:
I hung out with my buddy Ikem, who happens to be black. But I didn’t look at him, internalize the words of the founding fathers and trying to make myself think, “He’s not black… no, no… I don’t see skin color… he’s equal, or white, or… yeah… no color at all,” Instead, I saw the blatant inequality. Our skin colors were different. His was darker than mine. And unable to keep insight inside, I let it out. “Hey Ikem,” I said. “Your skin is darker than mine.”
And Ikem, realizing that I’d managed to see something that the rest of his white friends have been pretending not to say for years, said, “Yeah… so?”
So? So…. so what? I tried to think. He’s black… I’m pasty… our skin color is different… unequal… there’s gotta be something here, something big, something revolutionary… something people have been too afraid to see for over three centuries…”
“Shit man, that’s all I got. It’s darker than mine.” He laughed and told me not to drink anymore wine.
****
Though fighting for “inequality” lacks the kind of revolutionary appeal that, say, fighting for “freedom” has, I believe that beginning to see and acknowledge inequality can make a big impact on our world. Because if we can accept – and even talk about – our differences, then we can start to understand them… and understand their significant or insignificance.
Wilford is a better programmer than me. Does it mean anything else? No, it means he’s a better programmer.
I’m a better dancer than the wino on Main Street. Does it mean that I’m a better person than him… or that with a little practice and a detox program he still couldn’t take me in a dance off? No… it means, simply, that today – according to my girlfriend – I’m a better dancer.
For many of us, inequality is scary… because we don’t want to think about what might lie beneath it if we admit to its existence. “If I see that his skin is darker than mine… does that make me a racist…” we wonder. “Will I then be evil?”
But by not acknowledging inequality… by pretending that we don’t see it… we can’t ask the important questions. And it’s only when these questions are asked that we can conceive of the answers that will oftentimes be more reassuring than we might have imagined. “His skin is dark,” we realize… “But so what?”
Inequality has been a bad word for too long. I think it’s time we make it a good word… one that we’re not afraid to use when talking about people, countries, and worlds.
Because only when we’re able to talk candidly about inequality, will we be able to recognize that inequalities like skin color and chest hair concentration really don’t matter… but that inequalities like wealth disparity and the way we treat one another matter a lot.
As a child, we grew up across the road from a family with black skin. They were our best friends. It wasn’t until I went to school, I found out what that there was any difference between us and that’s when things became awkward and I felt I had to compensate for something in conversation, even though there was nothing wrong.
Hhhhmmm.
Nice work. I imagine a more mathematical formulation of the key point, which would of course be boring. As I see it, the definition of “equality” (which depends on the context) needs to be nailed down to where we can have a function, or series of quasi-logical thought-tests, to show us how the words we use actually betray us.
We get caught in thinking equality should mean “sameness” on a concrete level and also “same value” on an abstract level. That various people have, ideally, the same value for “freedom” and “rights” is cool. That we confuse this with thinking that to have the same rights is related to having the same characteristics, is not cool.
And yet the mind lives for such inferences. Thus we need those quasi-logical thought tests to suss out our errors of induction. I drew a function on the window today. Perhaps it will be suitable.
You’ve got your heretonyms all out of whack. Equal can mean a whole lot of things, don’t you agree?
It’s all in the definition. The definition you’re using is “equal” being a synonym for “same”. When talking equality, however, no one (present company excepted) uses that definition. Equality and being equal to someone else means we are, intrinsically, equal in value and basic human rights. You don’t have to have the same skin colour , you don’t have to have the same amount of sex, and you don’t have to be as intelligent.
There are, I believe, universal truths. I’m not saying they’re my truths, or yours, or any particular religion’s or philosophy’s. They do, however, exist. Just because people kill, or rape, or do other bad things, doesn’t stop these being wrong. Likewise, just because you aren’t treated with equality doesn’t make you any less equal.
The point is that we are born equal. What happens next is moulded in great part by the people around us. Just because people don’t treat you right, doesn’t make you any less worthy of basic human rights. The very line – “the pursuit of happiness” – acknowledges that within our rights to equality we may not always be “the same” … some will be happier at times than others.
This term – “equality” – is more about how you should see yourself and something you should fight for when it is taken away from you. It has nothing to do with trivialities of skin colour, bulging pockets, or doing what your parents say.
As you say towards the end of your post, not being equal doesn’t make one better or worse. It’s just different but still equal in rights. We should admit and embrace the differences. Multi-facetted, multi-cultural, multi-whatever … different but the same. Like you said, “he’s black … but so what”.
I think you and I probably differ on our understanding of the semantic value of the words “equality”, “equal”, &c. For me, equality means that regardless of our differences in appearance, skill, personality, ethics, intelligence, and so forth, we are all equaly entitled to the same basic human dignities such as due process, freedom from prejudice, free speech, and a voice in our government.
To read “equal” to mean “same” or “having all the same properties” is a bit rash, don’t you think? I very much hope nobody thinks /that/ is what is meant in our Constitution.
I’m excited to weigh in on the equality discussion! I am quite surprised that Dulles and Josh are debating the definition of equality. I looked it up in five dictionaries, and they all basically agree: equality is the state or condition of being equal or THE SAME.
There is nothing wrong or rash with Dan’s definition of equality, actually it’s right on. It only becomes wrong or rash when you bring your own interpretations about or preconceptions of the intentions of the founders into play. And to do that opens up a Pandora’s box. Very smart people have been debating the meaning and interpretations of words in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence for a long time.
I just took this post at face value. It’s got a powerful lesson, it’s funny, it’s different, and it’s another good read.
My two cents.
-Terry
I agree with Wilford, Josh and Dulles, we use the word equal to describe that we are worth the same (or that we should strive for equal rights and obligations and so on, and someone who brakes the law should have these same rights and obligations, right?), not that we look or act the same.
Denying differences between us (like skin-colour) is just either stupid or cowardly. Being afraid of stating these obvious things is just a sign that they DO matter for you. And I guess your point was that they should not (“so what?), and that’s a good point. Actually what scares me is if there are people who don’t say “so what?”.
Good post, but totally a misinterpretation of the Declaration of Independence. Let’s look at the language again, shall we?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
In other words, it is self-evident that all men, simply by being born, have an equal and unalienable right to not be killed, not be enslaved, and to pursue actions that they believe will make them happy.
This is clearly *not* a statement that people are born with equal abilities.
Only a fool believes that all individuals have equal abilities, or that things even out in the end. Life isn’t fair, the rich usually get richer, and the meek, rather than inheriting the earth, tend to become extinct.
No doubt about it, we’re not all as equal as we should be according to the U.S. Declaration of Independance. In Germany we have a similar paragraph (Article 3) in our Basic Law, that (1) All persons shall be equal before the law. (2) Men and women shall have equal rights. The state shall promote the actual implementation of equal rights for women and men and take steps to eliminate disadvantages that now exist. (3) No person shall be favored or disfavored because of sex, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith, or religious or political opinions. No person shall be disfavored because of disability.
I think the difference lies in the little addition “before the law”.
Of course we are not all created equal, but we should all have the same rights, no matter which color of skin, sexual orientation, body type or income we have.
So, yes, the phrasing in the founders’ declaration is a little incorrect, but (the way I understand it) it’s supposed to mean that we are all born with the same human rights, no matter how different we are. Even the right to be different.
That this is seldom the fact is another matter.
In practice, we’re about as far away from equality as U.S. citizens are. If your skin is too dark, you have a hard time finding a job; if you have a poor income your health insurance only covers equally poor medical treatment; if you’re in a wheelchair you’re not able to get on the bus etc.
But I believe we’re getting closer to equality in a way that may be a little like what you mean by “fighting for inequality”: we’re not noticing the differences so much anymore, we get used to the fact that a different skin color doesn’t set us apart, that having more money doesn’t make us a better person etc.
In the last few years I’ve come to work with a lot of black people and while ten years ago I was very conscious of a difference in skin color, like you describe with Ikem: “He’s not black… no, no… I don’t see skin color… he’s equal, or white, or… yeah… no color at all,” today I hardly ever notice it. Of course I know a black man is different from me in skin color, but then he’s a man while I’m a woman, he’s probably much taller and stronger than me, he’s different from me in a million ways, from the color of his hair to the length of his toes. It’s just that after a while every difference becomes insignificant.
I hope this does make sense, sorry, english is not my mother language.
I enjoy reading your blog hugely, thanks for the inspiration.
The Logic is Actually Sound!
1. The Declaration of Independence implicitly entitles people to all rights of equality when they are created (born).
2. It then goes on to explicitly entitle people to certain rights: namely, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
3. Equality in life, liberty, and happiness is a broad stroke. These words been interpreted and reinterpreted since they were written.
4. Equality regardless of gender, skin color, and amount of property held are not explicit rights.
5. But they are rights that we all share at birth, as can be implicitly inferred when we are granted equal rights at birth.
6. But, of course, the U.S. was far from treating people equally… even at birth. People’s life, liberty, and happiness was (and to a lesser degree still is) determined by gender, skin color, and the amount of property owned
7. Thus the Declaration of Independence sounded great in theory. But its words weren’t taken seriously by our founders, and weren’t put into practice.
8. This created a culture of denial in which we feel free to talk about equality (whether “sameness” or human rights) while simultaneously undermining it.
9. In order to better understand the magnitude of certain inequalities that we’ve inadequately acknowledged over the years, we must acknowledge that they exist and question them.
10. I agree.
The logic may not “feel” good, but in fact it is correct.
Wow. Great post! Witty, charming, intelligent, and really made me think. Tell me you also like long walks on the beach and are an Aquarius! Just kidding!
I agree with you on the most basic level of what you are saying–and I think your intentions are good. I know there’s been some discussion on the definition of equality already, so I won’t go into that… What I do want to add is this: Why do so many people think they CAN’T recognize difference? The problem is not that all people are different, the problem is that we assign values to these differences. What makes having white skin better than black? What makes being straight better than being gay? Intrinsically, nothing. But policies, laws, and attitudes left over from way back in human history affect the way people are treated, which results in inequality. And that is not right, and should not be acceptable in the U.S.
Money/social class is really different, because there are definite, quantifiable advantages to having it. That’s a whole different issue, and there is SO much I could say about that, but I’m at work, and I really ought to go accomplish something now!
When the founding fathers were referring to equality, they meant equal treatment from the government. For example, if Bob were to commit crime A and go to jail for B years, then Joe should also go to jail for B years if he commits crime A.
Of course the founding fathers knew that people in real life were not equal. They were among the most well educated people of the time. They were not some religious wackos who lived in tents on the mountains who talked out of their asses. They extensively studied history and governments from all over the world.
They only wanted people to not recieve favoritism or privileges from the government. They were very much against kings, nobles and other people who INHERITED status, like in England of that time. You have to understand the context of what they meant. They wanted all citizens to have liberty, life, property, and the ABILITY to PURSUE prosperity, but not automatically gain it. And they wanted these freedoms to be recognized by the government equally to all people.